To long tail, or not to long tail

Effectiveness of splitting keywords into individual adgroups

[wrightee]

I was recently advised that the 'old way' of shoving every possible phrase permutation you could get into your adgroup is not so good 'these days'; that it's far better to keep adgroups to a max of about five keywords and split the long tail that might garner a click or two a week out into individual groups.

I was wondering if this was sound advice in anyone's experience? I've tried it on a couple of my campaigns but don't have enough data yet to decide either way.

Advice always appreciated!

[PPC_Chris]

I wouldn't "shove every possible phase permutation" into one ad group, nor would I limit my adgroups to 5 keywords max.

Just use common sense and create ad groups that are focused yet are not too focused so that managing them will not take more time than the $$ they make is worth.

[BDuns]

Well, what's so bad about cramming 2000 keywords into an adgroup? Sure, it's difficult to manage individual keywords...but I see more problems with having mulitple adgroups containing closely related keywords.

Due to the expanded broad match, you will probably experience a lot of difficulty in getting the right ad to trigger (is this ad from this adgroup, or that adgroup?) When you do a search to see where you are actually showing, you won't be 100% sure (depending how you set up your keywords) which adgroup's ad is showing...so which ad copy do you modify, which adgroup gets the bid increase, etc.

[whoisgregg]

5 seems to be tossed around alot, but I find my ad groups tend to use 7-10 at the low end and up to 20 at the high end. It's all in how your keywords -> ad text -> on page text can relate to each other.

[BDuns]

I guess we should also consider the differences in industry.

I can think of a billion different ways someone would search for what I sell....other retailers might only need 5...guess it depends what you're selling.

[wrightee]

Thanks for the responses. The issue was more to do with effect on adwords itself as opposed to the management issues it raises, presumably the reasoning was keeping the high impression / lower ctr terms separate from low impression / high ctr phrases has some positive effects for the former.

[PPC_Chris]

I have been told by our reps that each keyword's quality score has no effect on other keywords in the ad group or campaign. From what I have personally experienced in my acconts, I have no reason to believe this is not true.

Of course, there is this report:
[ewhisper.net...]

Maybe there is some truth to this, but if so, the account quality score effect is most likely minimal. Unless maybe you are doing arbitrage or something shady and all your keywords are 'poor'.

As far as this particular situation, it wouldn't matter how you limited the ad groups since the effect is on the account level.

[Rehan]

I have been told by our reps that each keyword's quality score has no effect on other keywords in the ad group or campaign. From what I have personally experienced in my acconts, I have no reason to believe this is not true.

On the other hand, in the quiz here [google.com] the answer to the true/false question "A poor performing keyword can affect the Quality Score of an entire ad group or campaign" is true.

[smallcompany]

I agree with the concept of organizing keywords into multiple ad groups vs. one ad group, based on their, let’s call it, nature, form, typo or not typo, and so on. This means the number of keywords per one ad group would be defined by the number of possible combinations that fall under same umbrella, rather than some “stiff” rule like five keywords per ad group.

My way of thinking is that I decide about which keywords I will be going after, based on what the site is about. Google will show my ads. The thing that makes people clicking onto my ads are the actual ad text combined with the position of the ads (the higher they are, more clicks they will accrue).

Simple start would be something like “green widgets” vs. “greenwidgets”. Based on this, I create two ad groups so I can better match my ad text to my keywords.
Some time ago, Google started putting in bold (what Yahoo was doing for a while) parts of the ad text that match phrases, regardless of their “one word/two words” form.
Still, I prefer to divide such into two or more groups.

Same thing can be applied to singular/plural situation, and so on, whatever is applicable.

That is how I would go.

In regards of the long tail itself, I haven’t started using it as I couldn’t find Amazon’s or Walmart’s example from that famous book to really be applicable to my case.

I still agree with the logics. Click here and click there can grow into quite of clicks.

Another thing about multiple ad groups is how some keywords can trigger some ideas. If you run an ad group with 100 or 800 keywords or more, you are unlikely to pay attention to those that are receiving impressions but having no clicks, or why some are not receiving any impressions and so on. With less keywords per ad group, you may get a better insight into your campaign.

My 2 cents, bit long though. :)

In regards of Rehan's post

A question from that quiz:

A poor performing keyword can affect the Quality Score of an entire ad group or campaign. True

It says ad group or campaign, it is not saying other keywords (which PPC_Chris referred to).

Now, that is something new for me. If that exists, why we do not see QS of an ad group or campaign, but of keywords only?
Did anyone ever asked about visible QS of campaigns and ad groups?

[davewray]

Unless you have 2000 VERY related keywords, do NOT put them all into one adgroup...whether you've got a total of 2000 keywords, or 2 million keywords.

Google Knows that one cannot formulate a spot on ad and landing page for 2000 different keywords. The more specific your adgroups are, in terms of keywords within, the more specific your ad and landing page can be tailored to those keywords. Google loves this, and WILL award you a higher quality score.

I generally agree with WhoIsGregg and put 10 to 20 keywords in each adgroup. That way I can tweak bids easier than having to sort through a couple thousand keywords to see which are converting and which aren't. Also, if an adgroup is severely underperforming I can then easily delete, or pause it...

[karenmcd]

Maybe someone can help me figure out which phrase to use or not use.
I target a service that is nationwide, all cities, all states.
Without going crazy with keyword phrases (I had 20k), now down to 600 how can I target all these areas without my account getting so large.
Currently most of my phrases are Broad match.
Ex: Phoenix Blue Widget, Sacramento Blue Widget,etc.....
Right now I have 2 adgroups, ones general terms like Blue Widget. The other adgroup is all the Phoenix Blue Widgets, Sacramento....
If I just use the phrase Blue Widget or "Blue Widget" and don't include the cities, it doesn't seem to trigger any ads.
Any help would be appreciated.Thanks

[BDuns]

Try bidding by state, like "california widget, arizona widget" etc.

hopefully the broadmatch will pick up the fact that you are bidding by state.

[karenmcd]

I'm already using Arizona widget, California widget etc. But I think I need to target cities too...right? The service I'm offering, people will be searching for one close to their location. Basically. I list businesses to generate leads for them through my site.
I just don't know if I'm hurting myself by duplicating keywords in the phrases. Google told me I was using repetitive keywords.

[BDuns]

yeah, you should target the cities as well.

isn't there a way to specify which regional market you want your ads to show to? I don't know if this can be done by adgroup, or only by campaign. that may be the way to go - have a campaign that only targets a specific region...that way, you won't rely on the person specifying their location. it only shows the ad if they live there.

[karenmcd]

Thanks! I never thought about that. I'll give that a try.